Fred Wilson (New York VC) wrote a post on his blog this morning called The Bubble Question. In it, he talks about how everyone asks him whether or not there’s a tech bubble, which he has been asked for the past 4 years now. It reminded me of the debates that are also happening in the real estate community (particularly in Canada).

The thesis of his post is this:

I learned in business school that the multiple of earnings one should pay for a business is roughly the inverse of interest rates.

In other words, as interest rates drop, people are willing to pay more for the business or asset in question. And it’s because they can’t find the yields anywhere else.

The same phenomenon, you could argue, is also happening in the real estate space. Typically, income producing real estate assets are assessed using capitalization rates (or cap rates), which is defined by the Net Operating Income (NOI) of the property (revenue - expenses, but excluding financing costs), divided by the price of the property.

The real estate equivalent of what Fred is talking about is cap rate compression. When cap rates drop it means you’re paying more for the same amount of yield (or NOI). One of the reasons that might happen is because people are anticipating that the asset will appreciate. But it could also be because interest rates are so low that investors will take whatever returns they can get. 

So you could argue that the market is just responding to the macro economy. And since the feds are probably waiting for global growth to pickup (before raising rates), one could argue that the status quo is just going to continue. Ideally, it’ll continue until robust economic growth is able to take the place of cheap money.

It’s no secret that a lot of cities out there want to become the next Silicon Valley (or San Francisco, since a lot tech companies seem to be now setting up shop there instead). With the shift towards a knowledge/information/networked economy (pick your favorite name), cities around the world are betting that entrepreneurship is going to be the key to future economic growth.

As an example, I was reading yesterday about a Buffalo-based business plan competition called 43North. It’s allegedly one of the biggest business plan competitions, ever:

With $5 million in cash prizes, including a top award of $1 million, six $500,000 awards and four $250,000 awards, 43North is setting out to turn the best new business ideas from around the globe into reality.

In addition to cash, winners will receive mentoring and free office space for a year. But while the competition is open to anyone in the world, you have to relocate to Buffalo for a minimum of one year if you win. 

It’s a bold move. $5 million is a lot of money. But it strikes me as a step in the right direction to reinvent a city that was once the 8th largest in the US. I’m a big believer in the power of entrepreneurship.

The tech community has been receiving a lot of backslash in San Francisco as of late. And Peter Shih’s infamous 10 things I hate about San Francisco post certainly didn’t help. But I think there’s a bigger issue than just rich tech people driving up the price of real estate.

I was reading Quartz this morning and I think they nailed it: 

"But the blame shouldn’t go to the tech companies or their employees moving to San Francisco, however despicable some might be. Blame San Francisco for being pleasant, and its policymakers for being foolish: When a lot of people are moving to your city—San Francisco the city gained 50,000 new residents between 2000 and 2012, including some 25,000 between 2010-2012 and likely more since—home prices are going to increase unless you build a lot more housing."

I’ve talked about this idea before. But I wanted to break it down a bit more precisely.

If San Francisco, the city, gained 25,000 people between 2010-2012, let’s say that the city gained roughly 8,300 people per year. I just divided by 3. However, if you look at the rate of new housing supply, you get a 10-year average of 2,350 housing units a year (from the Quartz article) and an even lower amount

Fred Wilson (New York VC) wrote a post on his blog this morning called The Bubble Question. In it, he talks about how everyone asks him whether or not there’s a tech bubble, which he has been asked for the past 4 years now. It reminded me of the debates that are also happening in the real estate community (particularly in Canada).

The thesis of his post is this:

I learned in business school that the multiple of earnings one should pay for a business is roughly the inverse of interest rates.

In other words, as interest rates drop, people are willing to pay more for the business or asset in question. And it’s because they can’t find the yields anywhere else.

The same phenomenon, you could argue, is also happening in the real estate space. Typically, income producing real estate assets are assessed using capitalization rates (or cap rates), which is defined by the Net Operating Income (NOI) of the property (revenue - expenses, but excluding financing costs), divided by the price of the property.

The real estate equivalent of what Fred is talking about is cap rate compression. When cap rates drop it means you’re paying more for the same amount of yield (or NOI). One of the reasons that might happen is because people are anticipating that the asset will appreciate. But it could also be because interest rates are so low that investors will take whatever returns they can get. 

So you could argue that the market is just responding to the macro economy. And since the feds are probably waiting for global growth to pickup (before raising rates), one could argue that the status quo is just going to continue. Ideally, it’ll continue until robust economic growth is able to take the place of cheap money.

It’s no secret that a lot of cities out there want to become the next Silicon Valley (or San Francisco, since a lot tech companies seem to be now setting up shop there instead). With the shift towards a knowledge/information/networked economy (pick your favorite name), cities around the world are betting that entrepreneurship is going to be the key to future economic growth.

As an example, I was reading yesterday about a Buffalo-based business plan competition called 43North. It’s allegedly one of the biggest business plan competitions, ever:

With $5 million in cash prizes, including a top award of $1 million, six $500,000 awards and four $250,000 awards, 43North is setting out to turn the best new business ideas from around the globe into reality.

In addition to cash, winners will receive mentoring and free office space for a year. But while the competition is open to anyone in the world, you have to relocate to Buffalo for a minimum of one year if you win. 

It’s a bold move. $5 million is a lot of money. But it strikes me as a step in the right direction to reinvent a city that was once the 8th largest in the US. I’m a big believer in the power of entrepreneurship.

The tech community has been receiving a lot of backslash in San Francisco as of late. And Peter Shih’s infamous 10 things I hate about San Francisco post certainly didn’t help. But I think there’s a bigger issue than just rich tech people driving up the price of real estate.

I was reading Quartz this morning and I think they nailed it: 

"But the blame shouldn’t go to the tech companies or their employees moving to San Francisco, however despicable some might be. Blame San Francisco for being pleasant, and its policymakers for being foolish: When a lot of people are moving to your city—San Francisco the city gained 50,000 new residents between 2000 and 2012, including some 25,000 between 2010-2012 and likely more since—home prices are going to increase unless you build a lot more housing."

I’ve talked about this idea before. But I wanted to break it down a bit more precisely.

If San Francisco, the city, gained 25,000 people between 2010-2012, let’s say that the city gained roughly 8,300 people per year. I just divided by 3. However, if you look at the rate of new housing supply, you get a 10-year average of 2,350 housing units a year (from the Quartz article) and an even lower amount